Forbes: Best and Worst Teams for the Money

[kramer1]

The Best And Worst College Football Teams For The Money - Forbes

Discuss

 

[Wild Turkey]

Auburn is listed as one of the worst teams for the money = Fail

 

[4down20]

Auburn is listed as one of the worst teams for the money = Fail

It's only goes back 3 years. And aside from this year, it's been pretty bad in that time. It even mentions that this year takes a good bit of the umph off it.

Cheese Dick was a waste of money, don't see how anyone can argue that. It's obvious that Gus was the real factor behind 2010.

 

[Bamabino]

Barner Fife is at nearly 5 mil per win.

 

[Wild Turkey]

It's only goes back 3 years. And aside from this year, it's been pretty bad in that time. It even mentions that this year takes a good bit of the umph off it.

Cheese Dick was a waste of money, don't see how anyone can argue that. It's obvious that Gus was the real factor behind 2010.

Auburn only had one truly bad year 2011 we went to the Chik Fl a which is decent.
Chizik was horrible but he did bring in Gus and that alone was probably worth the investment.
Gus was definitely the factor it sure wasn't Ted Roof.

Study is flawed.

 

[4down20]

Auburn only had one truly bad year 2011 we went to the Chik Fl a which is decent.
Chizik was horrible but he did bring in Gus and that alone was probably worth the investment.
Gus was definitely the factor it sure wasn't Ted Roof.

Study is flawed.

If Auburn was getting what it paid for, then Gene would still be there.

/discussion

 

[Wild Turkey]

If Auburn was getting what it paid for, then Gene would still be there.

/discussion

Let's put it this way:

2010 National Championship
2011 Solid Bowl
2012 Worst season in school history
2013 Playing for national championship

How many schools would kill for that and gladly write the check and then some?

Think Texas would trade?
Oklahoma?
Michigan?
Oregon?
Standford?
USC?
Georgia?
Penn State?
Ohio State?
Miami?
FSU?
Florida?
Miami?
Clemson?
Tennessee?
LSU?

I think Alabama is the only school in the country that wouldn't make the trade.

 

[Bamabino]

Forbes is continually putting out these flawed studies just to piss Barner Fife off. What's wrong wid' 'em?

 

[Wild Turkey]

Forbes is continually putting out these flawed studies just to piss Barner Fife off. What's wrong wid' 'em?

At some point based solely on the concept of probability you should be able to post something intelligent....we just might have to wait years for it to happen.

 

[4down20]

Let's put it this way:

2010 National Championship
2011 Solid Bowl
2012 Worst season in school history
2013 Playing for national championship

How many schools would kill for that and gladly write the check and then some?

Think Texas would trade?
Oklahoma?
Michigan?
Oregon?
Standford?
USC?
Georgia?
Penn State?
Ohio State?
Miami?
FSU?
Florida?
Miami?
Clemson?
Tennessee?
LSU?

I think Alabama is the only school in the country that wouldn't make the trade.

It doesn't take into account 2010, just the past 3 years.

Those other schools don't spend as much as Auburn.

 

[Wild Turkey]

It doesn't take into account 2010, just the past 3 years.

Those other schools don't spend as much as Auburn.

I understand what he used as a sample for his study however he should have been smart enough to realize the entire CFB world would trade with Auburn with just one exception. That makes his premise of a "bad investment" laughable. Personally once the data came to the conclusions he reached I would have modified it. Too not do so just makes him look silly even if the numbers are correct.

Answer honestly do you put your name on that article knowing 2010 makes it a ridiculous conclusion?

 

[Bamabino]

At some point based solely on the concept of probability you should be able to post something intelligent....we just might have to wait years for it to happen.

So calling the Forbes article flawed with nothing to back yourself up with is intelligent. Gotcha'

 

[Wild Turkey]

So calling the Forbes article flawed with nothing to back yourself up with is intelligent. Gotcha'

Read I'm backing my statement up fine.

Now believing what you read when you know it is wrong just because it makes you feel good is unintelligent so your streak won't end today I'm guessing.

 

[Bamabino]

Read I'm backing my statement up fine.

Now believing what you read when you know it is wrong just because it makes you feel good is unintelligent so your streak won't end today I'm guessing.

You just admitted in your previous post his numbers are correct. 2010 is excluded.

 

[Wild Turkey]

You just admitted in your previous post his numbers are correct. 2010 is excluded.

But it shouldn't have been because it leads to an erroneous conclusion. The last step when pulling a sample of data is to review the conclusion and if that conclusion has anomalies that seem odd then you increase the sample size and re-test. This is true for all sampling.

The author kept Auburn because it sensationalized his article and made it more interesting to a greater number of readers. This is why you should always view the media with a skeptical eye.

 

[Bamabino]

But it shouldn't have been because it leads to an erroneous conclusion. The last step when pulling a sample of data is to review the conclusion and if that conclusion has anomalies that seem odd then you increase the sample size and re-test. This is true for all sampling.

The author kept Auburn because it sensationalized his article and made it more interesting to a greater number of readers. This is why you should always view the media with a skeptical eye.

Call Forbes then and cry about how stupid their writer is. His article. His parameters. You Barner Fife's sure get your feelings hurt easily and start the mudslinging.

 

[4down20]

But it shouldn't have been because it leads to an erroneous conclusion. The last step when pulling a sample of data is to review the conclusion and if that conclusion has anomalies that seem odd then you increase the sample size and re-test. This is true for all sampling.

The author kept Auburn because it sensationalized his article and made it more interesting to a greater number of readers. This is why you should always view the media with a skeptical eye.

Typical barner wanting to cherry pick dates to make them look best.

Why does it even matter? All it's doing is taking the # of wins and how much was paid for each. Do you think I want to trade places with Cincy? Fuck no. But I don't give a crap if Cincy gets the most wins for their buck at all.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Call Forbes then and cry about how stupid their writer is. His article. His parameters. You Barner Fife's sure get your feelings hurt easily and start the mudslinging.

My feelings aren't hurt I just find the study flawed and if you were smart enough to understand why you would agree.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Typical barner wanting to cherry pick dates to make them look best.

Why does it even matter? All it's doing is taking the # of wins and how much was paid for each. Do you think I want to trade places with Cincy? Fuck no. But I don't give a crap if Cincy gets the most wins for their buck at all.

I'm not cherry picking...in fact that is what the writer did and why the sample is flawed.

 

[4down20]

I'm not cherry picking...in fact that is what the writer did and why the sample is flawed.

Yes, he cherry picked data specifically to make Auburn look bad.